JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned Counsels of the appellant/insurance company and the claimants/respondents, it transpires that the deceased Vinod Singh was a driver of a truck, which he was plying on 19.8.2005, loaded with sand and small pieces of boulders, on the hilly road. The side of the road broke down suddenly due to heavy rain and consequently, the vehicle fell down 300 metres deep in the gorge. Vinod Singh lost his life in this accident. 2. The claimants are two fully grown up elder brothers and one married sister of the deceased. They have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,88,000/- by the Tribunal. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that for claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it must have been proved by the claimants that the vehicle was being driven in a quite rash and negligent manner, unlikely of claiming the compensation under Section 140 when the death and permanent disablement are resulted from an accident, nonetheless having no fault of anybody. So, the learned Counsel of the appellant interprets the difference between Section 140 and 166 of the Act that in the latter, the element of fault or wrongful act or neglect is inherent while claiming the compensation. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Surendra Kumar Arora & Another, (2012) 4 SCC 552 , which was covered by the decision of the Apex Court given in another case, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meean Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428 , wherein it was held that the victim of an accident or his dependents have an option either to proceed under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to taken upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. 3. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to taken upon themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. 3. Learned Counsel of the appellant/insurance company further argued that since in the pleadings of the petition, it was stated that the driver Vinod Singh was driving the vehicle slowly as well as with all care at his command, but still while permitting a scooter coming from behind to take pass, the wheel of the truck came on the retaining wall in the side of such road and the said wall, being not so strong, fell down suddenly resulting into the accident in question. So, when the claimants themselves have made the averments that the vehicle was being driven with all care, then the compensation cannot be claimed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being bereft of the element of neglect, wrong or default. 4. I have gone through the judgment (supra) and feel that wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the driver at the relevant time depends on facts to facts and circumstances to circumstances of each case. Even if the driver was driving his vehicle slowly and slowly with care, but still he could have driven it with more care and skill. So, the degree of care and skill in driving a particular vehicle can never be at a fixed standpoint in a particular set of facts. 5. In the facts of the instance case, had Mr. Vinod Singh taken care of assessing the nature of the road and its sides in the peak of the rainy season, then the accident could have been avoided. So, in that way, still the driver can be said to be rash and negligent, nonetheless he was driving the vehicle slowly. 6. In view of what has been said above, I feel that presenting the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not suffer with any infirmity. 7. As regards the second question that the claimants, being the two fully grown up adult elder brothers and one married sister of the deceased, were not the dependents, all the same they are the legal representatives. 8. 7. As regards the second question that the claimants, being the two fully grown up adult elder brothers and one married sister of the deceased, were not the dependents, all the same they are the legal representatives. 8. I do agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant on this point, and accepting this contention, I find that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, II (2007) ACC 365 (SC), is relevant. It was held as under in paragraph 16 of the said judgment: “Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependent files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court since has laid down the norms for awarding the compensation in such matters and has held that the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act, which provides the maximum amount of rupees fifty thousand. Likewise, another Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia, in paragraph 5 of his judgment, has rendered the opinion that if the case is of the category “No Fault Liability”, envisaged in Section 140 of the said Act, then the amount of rupees fifty thousand has to be considered as part of the estate of the deceased and the statutory compensation could constitute part of his estate. Therefore, his legal representative, namely, his daughter, since has inherited the estate, hence was entitled to receive the amount to that quantum. 10. I think that the applicability of this precedent can be accepted to the extent that the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act, but at the same time, nowhere it has been said that if the claimants are the legal representatives and not the dependants, then they will get the compensation of only rupees fifty thousand disregard of the fact that they moved the petition under Section 166 of the Act. At the same time, I think it would not be in the fitness of things to place the status of legal representatives, like the two fully grown up elder brothers and one married sister, on the same parity as is held by the dependents. It has been observed in a plethora of judgments that the death of any person in a motor accident should not be taken in the sense of a windfall or largesse for the legal representatives of the deceased. So, the amount of compensation cannot be determined in the strict sense which is contemplated for the dependents of the deceased under the Schedule. There is no mathematical formula in such cases to calculate the loss, which has been suffered by the claimants. 11. Looking to the entire facts, I reduce the compensation up to the amount of rupees one lakh fifty thousand, instead of what has been awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Rate of interest shall remain the same. Impugned judgment is modified accordingly. 12. The insurance company has already deposited the entire decreetal amount. The Tribunal shall release the amount to the claimants, as modified by this Court, as per their respective shares and the remaining/excess amount shall be returned back to the insurance company. 13. Let the lower court record be sent back.